George Westinghouse College Prep
World History
Unit 1 Reading Packet:
Islam and the West
World Studies
September 11, 2001 as a Historical Event
The September 11th Attacks
On September 11th, hijackers turned four commercial airliners into missiles and attacked key symbols of American economic and military might. The attacks leveled the World Trade Center towers in New York and destroyed part of the Pentagon.
More than 3,000 innocent civilians and rescue workers perished as a result of these acts of terror, making it the deadliest attack on the United States in the nation’s history. This was nearly as many as the 3,620 American--the largest number of Americans to die in combat on a single day--who died at the Civil War battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862.
The succession of horrors began at 8:45 a.m., when American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center's north tower. Eighteen minutes later, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the World Trade Center's south tower. At 9:40 a.m., American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. At 10 a.m., United Airlines Flight 93 crashed 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. Passengers onboard the airliner apparently stormed the airplane’s cockpit and prevented the hijackers from attacking the nation’s capital.
In the days following September 11th information about the hijackers was gradually pieced together, revealing the fact that the attack had been planned by Osama bin Laden and carried out by 19 hijackers from four different countries, all associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda.
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda
Osama bin Laden was born in 1957 to a Yemeni bricklayer. Bin Laden grew up in Saudi Arabia, where his father founded a construction firm that would become the largest in the desert kingdom. He inherited millions of dollars after his father’s death and graduated from one of the kingdom’s leading universities with a degree in civil engineering.
In 1979, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to assist Muslims in Afghanistan in expelling the Soviet Union’s army, which was trying to support a communist government in the country, by raising money and recruits. During the mid-1980s, bin Laden built roads, tunnels, and bunkers in Afghanistan.
Although the U.S. had helped him and his fellow warriors expel the Soviets from Afghanistan, bin Laden soon turned against the United States. He was furious about the deployment of American troops in Saudi Arabia--the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad and home of the two holiest Muslim shrines--that had been sent to protect the oil-rich kingdom from an Iraqi invasion. He condemned the United States’ support for Israel in the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In his writing and speeches from the 1990s he also spoke out against the American role in enforcing an economic embargo against Iraq and the United States’ role in supporting pro-Western, secular dictatorships around the Middle East.
By 1998, bin Laden had formed a terrorist network called Al-Qaeda, which in Arabic means “the base.” He also provided training camps, financing, planning, recruitment, and other support services for fighters seeking to strike at the United States. He and his followers established training camps in Afghanistan which was ruled by an Islamic group known as the Taliban who had seized control of Afghanistan’s government in the mid-1990s.
U.S. government officials believe bin Laden was involved in at least four major terrorist attacks against the United States’ interests prior to the September 11, 2001 attack: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the 1996 killing of 19 U.S. soldiers in Saudi Arabia; the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole at a port in Yemen. Although the U.S. did strike back against targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, Al-Qaeda viewed the U.S. responses to these attacks as half-hearted. However, the U.S. response to the September 11th attacks would prove to be very different.
The U.S. Response
The U.S. response to the September 11th attacks was immediate and forceful. Over a period of just three days, Congress voted to spend $40 billion for recovery. Then President George W. Bush organized an international coalition against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan that supported it. He attempted to persuade Pakistan, which had been the main sponsor of Afghanistan’s Taliban government, to support the United States.
On October 7, 2001, in retaliation for the September 11th attacks, a U.S.-led coalition launched an attack against targets in Afghanistan. The American strategy in Afghanistan involved using American air power and ground targeting to support the Northern Alliance, the major Afghani force opposing the Taliban. U.S. and British Special Forces, in conjunction with Afghani forces, succeeded in overthrowing the Taliban government by 2002. However, some members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, including bin Laden, apparently escaped into isolated regions along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
For the next ten years the United States and dozens of its allies remained in Afghanistan, attempting to track down Osama bin Laden and other members of Al-Qaeda, prevent the Taliban from regaining power and help a new Afghan government rebuild its war-torn infrastructure. Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan in May 2011, and the majority of American soldiers have left Afghanistan. However, 63,000 American soldiers remain in Afghanistan (scheduled to leave in 2014) and the United States now provides Afghanistan billions of dollars in development aid.
Civil Liberties and National Security: Trying to Strike a Balance
The war on terror has also forced the nation to toughen its national security. Following the horrifying events of September 11, 2001, more than 1,000 people, mainly Arab and Muslim men suspected of having information about terrorism, were detained by the federal government. These detainees were held without charges, and their names and whereabouts were largely kept secret.
In the wake of the September 11th attacks, Congress enacted legislation, known as the Patriot Act that gave law enforcement agencies broader authority to wiretap suspects and to monitor online communication. Congress also expanded the government’s authority to detain or deport aliens who associate with members of terrorist organizations.
President Bush responded to the attacks by proposing a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security would help to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce the country's vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recovery from attacks that do occur. Many Americans have experienced the enhanced security at places like the airport and border crossings, which have complicated travel for millions of Americans, but have helped to prevent subsequent attacks.
Most experts agree that the threat of future terrorist attacks has not, and will not, be totally removed. Meanwhile, the United States remains heavily involved—militarily, politically and economically— in both the Middle East and South Asia.
Arab Americans and Muslim Americans
Today, there are approximately 3 million Arab Americans in the United States. About a third live in California, Michigan, and New York. Arab Americans belong to many different religions. While most are Muslims, many are Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews, or Druze.
In the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks, some Americans directed their anger at Arab Americans, Muslims, and South Asians. Some violent hate crimes have been carried out against Muslims in the U.S. and several communities have attempted to block the construction of mosques and Islamic community centers in their neighborhoods.
Source: University of Houston, DigitalHistory.edu
World Studies
Muhammad, Islam, and the World: An Overview
Directions: Read the following history of the founding of Islam, annotating as you read. Before reading you should look over the worksheet to get an idea of what information you should be focusing on. As you read, use the text annotation strategy below. When you come into class tomorrow, your paper should contain underlining (main ideas only!), summaries in the margin, checkmarks or stars, circled words, questions and exclamation points.
Text Annotation
➢ Underline main ideas. (in history, we are usually looking for causes and effects of major events, comparisons, changes)
➢ Short, 1-2 sentence summaries in the margin next to each paragraph.
➢ ( Put a checkmark next to supporting details.
➢ Circle unknown words.
➢ ? put a question mark by statements you don't understand.
➢ ! next to new or interesting stuff.
Each day nearly 1.2 billion Muslims face in the direction of Mecca, a city in Saudi Arabia, when they say their prayers. They offer these prayers not once but five times daily. Over two million Muslims journey, moreover, each year to this sacred city in pilgrimage. All Muslims hope to make this journey at least once before they die. They live in 50 countries, and their religion is second only to Christianity in the size of its membership.
Almost all Americans know that a handful of Muslim extremists captured four commercial airliners, crashing them into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and in a field in rural Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, killing thousands of innocent people. Most Americans also know that these fanatics were not representative of the vast majority of Muslims or the Islamic religion. However, few Americans fully understand the Islamic religion or its Muslim followers. Typical questions asked by American students about Muslims are: What do they believe? Can Muslims and people of other religions ever get along in the world?
These are difficult questions to answer simply and with precision. In order to begin to answer these important questions, we have to know something about the Prophet Muhammad and the historic development of Islam. Who was this inspirational leader and how did his preaching and life become the basis of one of the world's major religions? How, moreover, did Islam evolve from a small band of followers into a global religion that became one of the greatest empires of the world.
What All Muslims Believe
Put simply, all Muslims believe that the one true God worshipped by Jews and Christians revealed his words to a prophet, Muhammad, who lived in the historic land of Arabia. Muslims believe that Muhammad was the final prophet sent by God. According to Muslim tradition, at the age of 40 Muhammad began receiving revelations from God through the angel Gabriel. He recited them to his followers, who memorized them and carefully copied them down. These revelations continued sporadically throughout his life. In the beginning, they warned people of a coming Day of Judgment and about Heaven and Hell, but they went on to include stories of other religious figures, some of them found in the Bible, such as Abraham, Moses, David, Mary, and Jesus, and established many of the religious practices and social norms that Muslims still follow today. Many of the revelations also direct Muhammad on how to respond to various problems that he faced in establishing Islam. These revealed words were collected into a sacred book, known as the Qur'an, which means "The Recitation."
Muslims look to this book as their guide in life. It is the basis of all their principles and values. They also study the Qur'an for what it can tell them about the life of Muhammad. How Muhammad lived his life as God's Prophet is, for Muslims, the model of how all Muslims should live and worship. They believe that Muhammad was God's messenger and that the example of his life, or Sunna, should be followed by all in order to merit heaven. All that Muhammad said, did, or allowed to happen is considered by Muslims to have been inspired by God, and thus both his actions and the Qur'an are the basis of Islamic law. The word "islam" means "surrender" to the will of God and comes from the Arabic root word "salam," which means "peace" or "salvation." The word Muslim simply means "one who surrenders to God."
The Prophet Muhammad
According to Muslim sources, Muhammad Ibn Abdullah was born in the year 570, but was orphaned at an early age. The city of his birth was Mecca in Arabia, a thriving crossroads of international commerce with trade routes connecting it to India, Africa, China, and Malaysia. Working as a young boy in the caravan trade, Muhammad eventually became the business manager for a wealthy widow, Khadija, whom he married. She was aged 40 and he was 25 years old when they wed. Over their lifetime together, she gave birth to two sons (who died in infancy) and four daughters.
Although respected for his knowledge and his business success, Muhammad was something of a loner and loved to go off by himself into the surrounding hills to think about the meaning of life. While in a cave one night, Muslims believe that Muhammad was visited by the angel Gabriel, who commanded him to "Recite." Muhammad was astounded and protested that he could not. But the angel Gabriel insisted, and finally Muhammad began to gush forth in speech the words of God. From this point on, Muhammad recited divine revelations for the next 23 years of his life.
Before he died, Muhammad would be recognized as a great prophet in Arabia, but the first 13 years after the visitation from Gabriel were very difficult for him and his followers. Most of the tribal leaders in Mecca opposed Muhammad's warnings from a monotheistic (only one) God. They believed in many gods and knew that Muhammad's teaching would threaten their power. They were especially angry because Muhammad's message of equality and individual accountability to God threatened the tribal system of hierarchy and group loyalty. And his message also challenged their hold on the Kaaba, or the religious shrine, in Mecca that housed their many tribal idols which, as a center of pilgrimage, made them rich.
Over the years, the oppression of Muhammad and his followers grew more harsh. Eventually the tribal leaders of Mecca hatched a plan to kill Muhammad. But before they could assassinate him, he moved a few hundred of his followers to Medina, a city about 200 miles to the north of Mecca. This move, known as the hijra in Muslim tradition, enabled Muhammad to emerge as the head of an Islamic city-state, and marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. There Muhammad lived for the remaining ten years of his life, establishing the first rules for an Islamic society, continuing to recite the growing Qur'an, and fighting against Mecca, who sent large armies to defeat him on three separate occasions. When they could not overcome him by force, the Meccans finally signed a treaty with Muhammad. But about two years later, Muhammad declared the treaty void after an incident between the Meccans and a tribe allied to him left several of his allies killed. Muhammad marched upon Mecca with a large army, conquering it after meeting no resistance and extending Muslim rule over all of Arabia. Central to his new authority was his uniting of all Arab tribes under the religion of Islam.
Source: Islam Project,
World History
The Expansion of Islam
Muhammad’s great accomplishment was to unite the previously warring tribes of Arabia under the religion of Islam. However, when Muhammad died in 632 a power struggle commenced over who would take over as the religious and political leader of the umma, the name given to the community of believers of Islam. Although these divisions were never totally resolved, in the late 7th century Arab armies began a process of successful political and military expansion that resulted in the establishment of a vast Islamic empire and the flourishing of medicine, science, technology, art, philosophy, and literature.
In the first century after Muhammad died, Muslims conquered territory stretching from the Atlantic to the borders of China. People often assume that this huge region instantly became "Islamic" with the arrival of Muslims. This notion led to the idea that people were forced to become Muslims, and that Islam spread by the sword. In fact, the spread of Islam in these lands took many centuries. Although the expansion of territory under Muslim rule happened very rapidly, the spread of Islam in those lands was a much slower process. The paragraphs below explain how and when that happened.
Question: What is the difference between “the spread of Islam” and the “expansion of territory under Muslim rule?” Why did one happen more quickly than the other?
The Qur’an states, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2: 256). This verse tells Muslims never to force people to convert to Islam. Anyone who accepts Islam under pressure might not be sincere. Converting to a religion by force, or only in name, would be useless and harmful to any religion.
Under Muhammad’s leadership, Muslims practiced tolerance toward persons with other religious beliefs. Muslims made treaties and agreements with people of other religions. They discussed religious ideas with Jews, Christians and polytheists (believers in many gods). The Qur’an and Muhammad’s example required Muslim leaders to be tolerant of Jews and Christians, who Muslims considered to be “the People of the Book,” and allowed them freedom of worship. With few exceptions, Muslim leaders have followed these policies over time.
To accept Islam, a person only has to make the profession of faith (shahada) in front of two or more witnesses. After that, it may take a long time to learn and apply Islamic practices, including learning the language of Arabic. As Islam spread, this process was multiplied across large populations. Many local variations of Islam took hold, as people combined Muslim beliefs and practices with their previous religions. This process continued even after societies had been majority Muslim for a long time. This has been a source of diversity among Muslim cultures and regions.
As people in lands under Muslim rule learned about the faith and traveled to Muslim cities, some began to accept Islam by choice. When they returned home, they shared their religious knowledge with family and friends. Many of the families of early non-Arab converts went on to become important scholars of Islamic knowledge. They played important roles in preserving Islamic law, history, literature and sciences.
Two great empires grew in the centuries after Muhammad’s death. The first, called the Umayyad Empire, lasted for about 90 years (661-750). Much of the early military expansion of Islam happened during the Umayyad Period. The Umayyads conquered all of the Persian Empire and half the Roman (Byzantine) empire. They spread across North Africa, conquered Spain and Portugal, and marched across Europe until they were finally repulsed in the heart of France at the Battle of Tours in 732. In the East, they extended the empire's borders to the Indian subcontinent (see map). The Umayyads made Damascus (in present-day Syria) their capital and established a centralized, Arab-dominated kingdom with a strong civil service that made Arabic the language of government and eventually the main language of most of North Africa and the Middle East.
In 747, an opposition movement led by a freed Abbasid slave overthrew the Umayyads, establishing the long-lived Abbasid empire (750-1258) with Baghdad as its capital. As the Abbasids came into power under the banner of Islam, they made great efforts to publicly align their government with Islam. They became patrons of Islamic philosophy, scholarship, art and science. As another departure from the past, Abbasid political success was not based on conquest, but on trade, commerce, industry, and agriculture.
Beginning in 1192, Muslims conquered parts of India. Although the number of Muslims in South Asia gradually increased, Hinduism remained the religion of the majority in India. Muslim rulers in India generally treated Zoroastrians, Buddhists, and Hindus just as it treated Jews and Christians. They were offered protection of life, property, and freedom of religious practice in exchange for paying a tax. Muslim citizens paid other types of taxes, and served in the army. In South India and Sri Lanka, traders and Sufis, or mystical followers of Islam, spread Islam and carried it to Southeast Asia by 1300 CE. In Central Asia, Islam gradually spread to the original homelands of the Turks and Mongols, nomadic horsemen whose influence was spread widely by conquest and trade.
Before 1500, Islam had also spread widely in sub-Saharan Africa. In the early 11th century Islam had made its way across Saharan trade routes into the West African kingdom of Ghana, where rulers voluntarily converted to Islam. Muslims established the kingdom of Mali in the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, which was later taken over by the Songhai from 1465 to 1600. In the thriving capital city of Mali, Timbuktu, African Muslim scholars taught, wrote and practiced Islamic law as judges. Often, rulers in these places accepted it first, followed by others. In East Africa, Arab traders had spread Islam down the coast by the tenth century through their participation in the vibrant Indian Ocean trade network. In the East African city-states of Kilwa , Mombasa and Sofala local languages and cultures blended with Arabic to form a distinct Swahili language and culture that thrives to this day.
In summary, the expansion of Muslim rule was different from the spread of Islam among populations and took place over the course of several centuries. In some places, a ruler’s conversion often influenced people in the society to accept Islam, but these were not forced conversions. More often, merchants, teachers, and traveling Sufi preachers were the agents who helped spread Islam. Finally, according to Islamic beliefs, it is not a Muslim who causes someone to accept Islam, but God who opens a person’s heart to faith.
Eventually, the powerful Muslim empires of Southwest Asia, South Asia and Africa lost ground to European industrialism, military might, and colonial aspirations. With the fall of the Muslim Ottoman Empire after World War One, the period of Empire in Islam came to an end. Today Islam exists within over 50 separate countries, and in many cases is subsumed within the political and cultural norms of these diverse societies.
Source: Adapted from, “Overview of Muslim History and the Spread of Islam from the 7th to the 21st century,” .
----------------------------
Reading for Cause and Effect: As you have just read, there were many reasons why Islam spread as far and as quickly as it did. List as many of them as you can find on the chart below. Keep in mind that some causes will be directly linked to the effects listed below, but other causes are more general and could be linked to many or even all of the effects listed.
|Causes of the expansion of Islam (what factors contributed to the rapid spread|Link (explain how this helped to cause the expansion of Islam): |
|of Islam?) | |
|Example: Arab armies conquered a vast territory during the Umayyad dynasty. |Arab Muslims ruled over their newly conquered territories, introduced the |
| |language of Arabic—caused some to voluntarily convert |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
World Studies
Background Reading on The Crusades: 1096 to 1289
The rapid expansion of Islam between the 7th and 11th century included the conquest of lands considered holy to both Christians and Jews—most notably the city of Jerusalem.
Beginning in 1096, some Christian Europeans heeded the call of the Pope to launch a series of “holy wars” aimed at gaining control of Jerusalem from the Muslim Arabs and Turks.
In all, eight crusades were carried out. Jerusalem fell to the Christians in 1099, partly due to the disarray among Muslims. It took Muslims nearly half a century to respond effectively with their own call for defensive jihad, which required fighting against the Crusaders. Under the leadership of Salah al-Din, the Muslims effectively ended the Christian hold on the Holy Land in 1187, shortly after which Jerusalem was restored to Muslim control. It would be another 100 years, however, before the last Christian strongholds (Tripoli and Acre) fell to the Muslims.
In general, the Muslims considered the Crusades to be an invasion by European outsiders, and history indicates that the Europeans treated Muslims and Jews much more harshly in comparison to Muslim treatment of Christians. The Christian sacking of Jerusalem and the massacre of its Muslim and Jewish residents during the first Crusade are often remembered as tragic historical examples of religious intolerance.
Source:
------------------------------------
Europe cringes at Bush 'crusade' against terrorists
By Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / September 19, 2001
As Europeans wait to see how the United States is planning to retaliate for last week's attacks on Washington and New York, there is growing anxiety here about the tone of American war rhetoric.
President Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust.
"We have to avoid a clash of civilizations at all costs," French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine said on Sunday. "One has to avoid falling into this huge trap, this monstrous trap" which he said had been "conceived by the instigators of the assault."
On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.
His use of the word "crusade," said Soheib Bensheikh, Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille, France, "was most unfortunate", "It recalled the barbarous and unjust military operations against the Muslim world," by Christian knights, who launched repeated attempts to capture Jerusalem over the course of several hundred years.
Bush sought to calm American Muslims' fears of a backlash against them on Monday by appearing at an Islamic center in Washington. There he assured Americans that "the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about."
But his earlier comments, declaring a war between good and evil, shocked Europeans. "If this 'war' takes a form that affronts moderate Arab opinion, if it has the air of a clash of civilizations, there is a strong risk that it will contribute to Osama bin Laden's goal: a conflict between the Arab-Muslim world and the West," warned the Paris daily Le Monde on Tuesday in an editorial.
"Bush is walking a fine line," suggested Dominique Moisi, a political analyst with the French Institute for International Relations, the country's top foreign policy think tank. "The same black and white language he uses to rally Americans behind him is just the sort of language that risks splitting the international coalition he is trying to build.
"This confusion between politics and religion...risks encouraging a clash of civilizations in a religious sense, which is very dangerous," he added.
On Monday, Taliban deputy leader Mohammed Hasan Akhund warned his fellow Afghans to prepare for 'Jihad' - holy war - against America, if US forces attack Afghanistan.
While almost every world leader agrees with Washington that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center were evil, not all of those leaders - especially in the Middle East - identify the United States with good.
British prime minister Tony Blair has gone out of his way this week to make it clear that the battle against terrorists is a battle not between Christians and Muslims, but between civilized values and fanaticism. In that battle, he said Monday "the vast majority of decent law-abiding Muslims" opposed fanaticism.
It is their support for Washington's war that could be undermined by the sort of language on the president's lips, warns Hussein Amin, a former Egyptian ambassador who now lectures on international affairs. "The whole tone is that of one civilization against another," he finds. "It is a superior way of speaking and I fear the consequences - the world being divided into two between those who think themselves superior" and the rest.
Moderate Muslim opinion could also easily be swayed against America, predicted Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, head of the Muslim Parliament in Britain, an umbrella group for Muslim organizations. "If they end up killing innocent civilians it will be very unfair," Dr. Siddiqui said. "The problems will arise if people see that justice has not been done."
French President Jacques Chirac, who arrived in Washington Tuesday, and Mr. Blair, who will see Bush Thursday, are expected to offer Europe's solidarity, but to stop short of offering Washington a blank check. If European help is needed, Europeans want to be in on the planning, officials here say.
|Thesis: “President Bush’s use of the term ‘crusade’ showed the importance of understanding the significance of history.” |
|Supporting arguments and evidence: |
| |
World History
Creation of Nation States in the Middle East
Source:
|Describe major changes in the map of the Middle East|Predictions about causes and/or significance of |After reading, I now know that the cause of the |
|between 1683 and 1922: |change: |change was… |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Creation of Nation States in the Middle East
|The map of the Middle East, as we know it today, was shaped by the events of the first world war. For hundreds of years prior to that time the Ottoman | |
|Empire controlled much of the area. (see map) The breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the new nation states created as a result has had long-standing | |
|effects on the relationship between religion, ethnicity, natural resources and politics in the Middle East. | |
| | |
|The Ottoman Empire (1300-1922) ruled a vast territory that included much of the Balkans, Anatolia, the central Middle East to the borders of Iran, and | |
|most of North Africa. It was a multiethnic, multi-religious state ruled through an extensive administration under laws derived from Islam and by the | |
|sultan's dictates. The Ottoman Empire was a world power and a significant player in European politics. In fact, the Ottomans ruled one-quarter of Europe | |
|for hundreds of years until the 18th century. | |
| | |
|Challenges to Ottoman supremacy before 1800 | |
|By the turn of the 18th century, Ottoman power was beginning to weaken. In 1683, the Ottomans had staged an unsuccessful siege of Vienna, the capital of | |
|the powerful Austro-Hungarian Empire in Europe. Less than 100 years later, in 1774, for the first time in their long history, the Ottomans were forced to | |
|give up significant Muslim territory to an opponent, their northern neighbor, Russia. | |
| | |
|Beginning in the late 1700s the growing centralized power of industrialized European nation-states performed more efficiently than the larger, | |
|decentralized Ottoman Empire, and new sea routes to China and India allowed Europeans to circumvent land routes through Ottoman territories, which had | |
|previously been a large source of wealth for the Ottoman rulers. | |
| |
|European imperialism |
|While Ottoman power waned in the 17th-19th centuries, the influence of the European nation-states grew. All of the great powers of Europe -- Britain, |
|France, Germany, and Russia -- sought to control natural resources, create markets for their industries, and establish colonies around the globe. They |
|competed for political and economic influence in the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, North Africa, and Iran prior to World War I. France occupied Algeria in 1830 |
|and Tunisia in 1881; the British took control of Aden (in Yemen) in 1836 and Egypt in 1882; and Italy occupied Libya in 1911. |
| |
|The Ottoman response and the rise of nationalism |
|In the 19th century, the Ottomans tried to combat the growth of European power and influence. They trained their armies in new techniques and equipped |
|them with up-to-date weapons. They created new government structures and state school systems modeled on those of Europe. They borrowed money to develop |
|their infrastructure, building railroads, telegraph lines, and modern ports. Ironically, modernization got them further under the control of the |
|Europeans, who provided the loans. |
| |
|Intellectual reformers like Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Qasim Amin encouraged religious and political changes in response to the modern world as a way to |
|break free from European colonialism. Secular [non-religious] nationalist movements, like the Young Turks , also arose. Secular nationalism was |
|particularly strong among non-Muslim communities, which could not fully participate in the Islamic Ottoman government. |
| |
|By the 19th century, nationalism within individual states regions was beginning to challenge the authority of the multicultural Ottoman Empire. Greece won|
|independence from the Ottomans in 1832, and other Balkan nations, such as Serbia, began to follow suit. |
| |
|World War I |
|In World War I, the Ottoman Empire joined forces with the Germans and Austro-Hungarians in their war against Britain and France. Some Arab states joined |
|the British under the leadership of the Sharif of Mecca. In return, the British promised them independence after the war. The British and French, however,|
|had already made a secret deal (the Sykes-Picot Agreement), carving up the Middle East between themselves into areas of direct or indirect control. |
| |
|A final complication was the Balfour Declaration made by the British in 1917, promising their support for "the establishment in Palestine of a National |
|Home for the Jewish people." This agreement conflicted with the promise of Arab independence and set the stage for much further conflict. The Balfour |
|Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement helped create a legacy of resentment toward colonial rule and distrust of Western motives that persists for many|
|in the Middle East. |
| |
|The mandate system in Arab states |
|In 1920, the Ottoman Arab provinces were divided between Britain and France along the lines of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, with borders drawn up entirely |
|by the colonial powers. Mandates from the League of Nations gave France control of Syria and Lebanon. Britain held mandates over Palestine, Iraq, and the |
|newly created Transjordan. To satisfy the Arabs, the British made the sons of the Sharif of Mecca rulers of two of these new states: Faisal was made king |
|of Iraq, and Abdullah was made king of Transjordan, later Jordan. |
| |
|Some groups had their hopes for a nation-state dashed. The Kurds were briefly promised an independent state by the Allies in 1920, but in the end other |
|interests triumphed: The areas of Kurdish settlement were divided among Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. |
| |
| |
|Independence and Modernization |
| |
|During the 1930s and 1940s nationalists demanded an end to European control in the Middle East. The mandates became the independent states of Iraq, |
|Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. Each of these nations were ruled by secular governments, although all of them except for Israel were majority Muslim. |
|Over time, both Iraq and Syria came under control of military dictatorships, while Lebanon has struggled to maintain a democracy, and Jordan has become a |
|constitutional monarchy. |
| |
|Of these nations, Israel proved to be the most controversial. Israel was a nation made up of millions of Jewish people, most of whom had only recently |
|returned to Israel from Europe and the United States. Many of these ‘Zionists’ were survivors of the Holocaust, during which Nazi Germany had recently |
|killed over six million Jews between 1938 and 1945. Great Britain, and later the United Nations agreed to carve out a Jewish state in the region of |
|Palestine, a land previously occupied mostly by Muslim Arabs. The controversy over the creation of Israel would lead to a series of wars and other |
|violence over the next 65 years. |
| |
|In Arabia, independence had been secured by the ruling Saud family, and the country became known as Saudi Arabia. The country is a monarchy, though its |
|ruling family has been heavily influenced by Islam, and many of its laws and policies reflect conservative Muslim beliefs. When enormous oil fields were |
|discovered in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, Great Britain and the United States developed a very close relationship with the ruling Saud family. |
|Nevertheless, a number of Muslims both inside and outside of Saudi Arabia resent the Saud family and their relationship with the United States, and aim to|
|create a theocracy in the holy land. |
| |
|The other major nation in the Middle East, Iran, had never been part of the Ottoman Empire. Iran had historically been known as Persia and was part of a |
|series of powerful empires stretching all the way back to 500 BCE. After World War I, a military commander, Reza Shah Pahlevi, took power. He was an |
|aggressive Westernizer, but his reforms did not fully take root. The chief result was the creation of a wealthy Westernized class divided from the general|
|population, which retained closer ties to traditional culture and Islam. |
|Describe major changes in the map of the Middle East|Predictions about causes and/or significance of |After reading, I now know that the cause of the |
|between 1922 and 2012: |change: |change was… |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
Middle East, 2012
World Studies
Like Oil and Water: Natural Resources in the Middle East
Source:
The Middle East has always had a rich abundance of natural resources, although which resources are coveted and valued has changed over time. Today, abundant petroleum fields dominate the area's economy. The Middle East is similarly rich in natural gas (32 percent of the world's known natural gas reserves are in the region) and phosphate (Morocco alone has more than half of the world's reserves).
Water has always been an important resource in the Middle East -- for its relative scarcity rather than its abundance. Disputes over rights to water (for example, building a dam in one country upstream from another) are a fundamental part of the political relationships in the region. Water for irrigation is necessary for many of the ecosystems to sustain crops.
Early Western control of oil
In the 18th and 19th centuries, major European nations competed to establish and maintain colonies around the world. Superior military power and economic leverage allowed them to create new markets for their manufactured goods, and to exploit the natural resources of the African, American, and Asian continents.
Beginning in the early part of the 19th century, Europeans competed to control the Middle East, giving those nations control over any natural resources, most importantly oil. Modern armies were thirsty for oil. The British navy was the first to switch from coal to oil in 1912, and other new technologies, like automobiles and airplanes, quickly and drastically increased the demand for fuel.
The United States was becoming an important player in world affairs during the early 20th century, and soon Americans found they, too, had a vested interest in developing and controlling oil reserves in the Middle East to supply their growing needs.
Struggles over Iranian oil
In the early 20th century, British prospectors discovered oil in Persia (current day Iran) and in 1908 began the first large-scale drilling projects there. The government of Iran sold the exclusive right to explore and drill for oil in Iran to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).
In time, Iranians grew to resent the AIOC. The terms of the agreement were so unbalanced that British investors were rewarded handsomely while the government of Iran made very little profit. Foreign businessmen and engineers in Iran led wealthy lifestyles that contrasted sharply with the poverty of the local population.
Frustration with foreign exploitation led to nationalization, which meant that the Iranian government took control of the country’s oil supply. The Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadeq nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1953, but in a coup engineered by the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), this nationalist government was overthrown, and a government friendly to Western interests was installed under the control of the Shah of Iran. The continued economic and cultural influence of the West and the repressive nature of the Shah's regime led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The Shah was overthrown and exiled, and the new Islamic Republic of Iran was established, led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
American dependence on Middle Eastern oil
After World War II, Britain and France gave up control over much of the Middle East, but a new world power, the United States, increased its presence in the region as American demands for oil were rapidly growing and outstripping domestic supply.
Standard Oil of California first discovered oil in Saudi Arabia in 1936. The huge deposits there and in the neighboring Persian Gulf countries -- the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain -- established these countries as some of the richest in the world.
Continuing American military power and domestic lifestyles depend on available access to Middle Eastern oil and reasonably low world petroleum prices. Thus, U.S. foreign policy initiatives work to support the stability of pro-U.S. governments, prevent anti-U.S. blocs from forming, and reduce tension and potential armed conflict in the region. Relations between the Saudi and U.S. governments have traditionally remained strong, despite some controversial policies of the Saudi government. At the same time, many Saudis mistrust their government's close relationship with the U.S. and resent other American policies in the region, such as U.S. support for Israel and the U.S.-led bombing of Iraq. The presence of armed U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia -- the birthplace of Islam -- is particularly galling to many Muslims.
Because the Middle East has the world's largest deposits of oil (55 percent of the world's reserves) in an easily extracted form, Middle Eastern oil continues to be necessary to the United States. American dependence on foreign oil has grown steadily over the years; currently about 55 percent of the oil consumed in the U.S. is imported. This reliance on foreign oil leaves the country vulnerable to political and economic acts by oil producing countries.
The positive and negative faces of oil
Oil money has created both opportunities and problems for the region.
Middle Eastern nations have learned to manipulate their production of oil as an international strategy. In 1960 the world’s leading oil producers formed an organization called the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). OPEC plays a major role in determining the global price of crude oil by deciding whether to increase or decrease oil production. After the unsuccessful Yom Kippur War with Israel in 1973, an OPEC oil embargo by Arab nations demonstrated a new way to influence European and American policy. Oil prices quadrupled from $3 a barrel in 1972 to $12 a barrel in 1974. In the U.S., the era of cheap gas came to an end, stimulating research on increasing energy efficiency, conservation, and alternative fuels as well as exploration for alternative sources of oil.
Uneven distribution of petroleum deposits has created inequalities in wealth and power in the Middle East. Gulf countries with relatively small populations have the most oil. When workers from countries with large, poor populations, such as Egypt, come to the Gulf region to work, they are often treated as second-class citizens. Meanwhile, wealthy Saudis and Kuwaitis may vacation in Egypt, openly drinking alcohol and displaying other behaviors that would not be permitted in their home countries. Even within oil-rich nations themselves, there is a large gap between rich and poor.
The future of oil
Oil will continue to be an important regional and global issue. In fact, some question whether one reason the U.S. seeks to maintain influence in Afghanistan after the overthrow of the Taliban is American interest in Central Asian oil and a possible pipeline through Afghanistan. Some estimates show that by 2050, landlocked Central Asia will provide more than 80 percent of the oil distributed to the U.S. As a result, the control of pipelines through Afghanistan or Turkey to distribution centers will be of increasing importance to the United States.
Reading questions:
1) What were the major causes of the West’s increased demand for petroleum in the 20th century?
2) What effects has the United States’ dependence on oil had on its relationship with nations in the Middle East?
Oil Perceptions: Fact or Fiction?
1) The only source of conflict in the Middle East is oil and the desire for oil.
2) The nations in the Middle East are all extremely wealthy because of their oil reserves.
3) The United States is completely dependent on the Middle East for its oil.
4) The foreign policy of the United States is heavily influenced by its need for oil.
5) The United States’ interest in the Middle East began with the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia.
6) Arab nations in the Middle East are united in their dislike for and distrust of the United States.
World History
Cause/Effect: Oil in the Middle East
Cause: U.S. and Europe increased their demand for oil
When reading for cause and effect it is important to decide whether events that happen after a cause are effects, or whether they are simply events that happened after the cause. In other words, you need to be able to establish a link between the cause and the effect.
| |Yes/No |If yes, briefly explain the link—in what way was this caused by the |
| | |U.S./Europe’s increased demand for oil |
|In oil-rich countries there are large inequalities of wealth | | |
|Since 1973 the United States has begun to research alternative | | |
|sources of energy | | |
|In 1973, Arab nations went to war with Israel in the Yom Kippur | | |
|War | | |
|After World War II, Great Britain and France gave up much of their| | |
|control over the Middle East | | |
|In 1979, the Islamic Revolution in Iran overthrew the Shah and | | |
|established an Islamic Republic | | |
|The United States has maintained a large military presence in the | | |
|Middle East since the 1980s. | | |
|United States’ Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries) |
|(Thousand Barrels per Day) |
|Country (Region) |Sep-11 |Aug-11 |YTD 2011 |Sep-10 |YTD 2010 |
|CANADA (N. America) |2,829 |2,637 |2,670 |2,479 |2,537 |
|SAUDI ARABIA (Middle East) |1,479 |1,075 |1,187 |1,093 |1,086 |
|MEXICO (N. America) |1,192 |1,185 |1,218 |1,254 |1,260 |
|VENEZUELA (S. America) |806 |906 |979 |1,008 |1,007 |
|RUSSIA (Europe) |592 |585 |609 |648 |624 |
|NIGERIA (Africa) |580 |892 |876 |1,174 |1,053 |
|COLOMBIA (S. America) |529 |395 |395 |363 |360 |
|IRAQ (Middle East) |404 |637 |473 |422 |464 |
|ECUADOR (S. America) |305 |309 |205 |229 |217 |
|ANGOLA (Africa) |304 |331 |335 |417 |422 |
|ALGERIA (Africa) |291 |298 |396 |543 |512 |
|VIRGIN ISLANDS (Caribbean) |189 |185 |189 |302 |261 |
|BRAZIL (S. America) |188 |228 |240 |181 |289 |
|ARUBA (Caribbean) |149 |81 |79 |0 |0 |
|KUWAIT (Middle East) |145 |165 |165 |172 |206 |
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
------------------
Sources of United States’ Oil, 2012
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
Source: WTRG Economics
World Studies
Like Oil and Water
Water wars
Another resource of vital importance to the region is water. Egypt, Iran, and Turkey are the only countries in the region with abundant fresh water resources. Roughly two-thirds of the Arab world depend on sources outside their borders for their water supply.
The scarcity of water is a major cause of tension between states in the region. Former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali has said that the next war in the Middle East will be fought over water.
The Jordan River provides 75 percent of Jordan's water and 60 percent of Israel's. In the early 1960s, Arab nations worked to divert the headwaters of the Jordan away from Israel and towards Jordan. One of Israel's objectives in the Arab-Israeli Six Day War of 1967, among others, was to control the Golan Heights and prevent this plan from being carried out. Israel is still reluctant to restore control of the Golan Heights to Syria. Though often ignored in Western analyses, water is one of the most contentious issues in the discussion of any peace plan for the Jordan Valley.
The Euphrates River, which originates in Turkey, provides most of the water for eastern Syria and almost all of Iraq. Turkey plans to build almost two dozen hydroelectric power dams for its growing population and industries. These dams, joining the completed Atatürk Dam, would drastically reduce the water available to Syria and Iraq. Syria, in turn, has dammed part of the Euphrates under its control, further choking off the water supply to Iraq. International complaints and protests are often challenged on the grounds that the dams are domestic infrastructure projects.
The Persian Gulf War
Source: digitalhistory.edu
At 2 a.m., August 2, 1990, some 80,000 Iraqi troops invaded and occupied Kuwait, a small, oil-rich emirate on the Persian Gulf, touching off the first major international crisis of the post-Cold War era. Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, justified the invasion on the grounds that Kuwait was historically a part of Iraq. He also accused Kuwait of intentionally lowering world oil prices by over-producing oil, and stealing oil from Iraq by drilling into their oil fields.
Iraq's invasion caught the United States off guard. The Hussein regime was a brutal military dictatorship that ruled by secret police and used poison gas against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiite Muslims. Nevertheless, during the 1970s and 1980s, the United States--and Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and West Germany--sold Iraq an awesome arsenal that included missiles, tanks, and the equipment needed to produce biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. During Baghdad's eight-year-long war with Iran, the United States sided largely with Iraq.
Yet when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the United States showed an immediate willingness to go to war with its former ally. On August 6, 1990, two days after the invasion, President Bush dramatically declared, "This aggression will not stand." With Iraqi forces poised near the Saudi Arabian border, the U.S. government feared that Iraq might invade the oil-rich nation. Tthe Bush administration sent 180,000 troops to protect the Saudi kingdom. Bush also organized an international coalition against Iraq. He convinced Turkey and Syria to close Iraqi oil pipelines and established a multi-national army to protect Saudi Arabia. In the United Nations, the U.S. succeeded in persuading the Security Council to condemn the Iraqi invasion, demand restoration of the Kuwaiti government, and impose an economic blockade.
Bush's decision to resist Iraqi aggression reflected the president's assessment of vital national interests. Iraq's invasion gave Saddam Hussein direct control over a significant portion of the world's oil supply, and the ability to affect the price of crude oil. It also disrupted the Middle East balance of power and placed Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf emirates in jeopardy of Iraqi invasion. Iraq's 545,000-man army threatened the security of such valuable U.S. allies as Egypt and Israel.
In November 1990, the crisis took a dramatic turn. President Bush doubled the size of American forces deployed in the Persian Gulf, a sign that the administration was prepared to eject Iraq from Kuwait by force. The president went to the United Nations for a resolution permitting the use of force against Iraq if it did not withdraw by January 15, 1991. After a heated debate, Congress also gave the president authority to wage war.
President Bush's decision to liberate Kuwait was a political and military gamble. The Iraqi army was the world's fourth largest and possessed potentially devastating weapons. But after a month of allied bombing, the coalition forces had destroyed thousands of Iraqi tanks and artillery pieces, supply routes and communications lines, and command-and-control bunkers. The bombing also may have limited Iraq's ability to produce nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Iraqi troop morale suffered so badly under the bombing that an estimated 30 percent of Baghdad's forces deserted before the ground campaign started.
The allied ground campaign relied on deception, mobility, and overwhelming air superiority to defeat the larger Iraqi army. Only 100 hours after the ground campaign started, the war ended. Iraqi forces retreated from Kuwait and, although Saddam Hussein remained in power, his ability to control events in the region was dramatically curtailed. Nevertheless, the decision to leave Hussein in power was a controversial decision, and some questions remained over Iraq’s desire and ability to manufacture chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. In the short term, however, the United States had protected its oil-rich allies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and helped to restore at least temporary order in the Middle East. In a show of the United States’ long-term commitment to the region, five thousand American soldiers remained stationed in Saudi Arabia.
Support or refute: “The war between the United States and Iraq in 1991 was caused by the United States’ demand for cheap Middle Eastern oil.” Find specific evidence that could be used to support or refute this thesis.
World Studies
What Motivated the September 11th Attacks?
Document A
Source: President George W. Bush addressed a joint meeting of Congress on September 20, 2001, nine days after the 9/11 attacks.
"Americans are asking, 'Why do they hate us?'
"They hate what we see right here in this chamber, a democratically-elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
"They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa….With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way."
Document B
Source: Osama bin Laden, February 23, 1998
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."
"Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance…the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres….
"Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq,…and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets.
"All these crimes and sins committed by Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims….On this basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa [religious edict] to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it…."
Document C
Source: Lawrence Wright, in his book The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11:
"From Iraq to Morocco, Arab governments had stifled freedom and signally failed to create wealth….Radicalism usually prospers in the gap between rising expectations and declining opportunities. This is especially true where the population is young, idle, and bored; where the art is impoverished; where entertainment-movies theater, music-is policed or absent altogether, and where young men are set apart from the consoling and socializing presence of women. Adult illiteracy remained the norm in many Arab countries. Unemployment was among the highest in the developing world. Anger, resentment and humiliation spurred young Arabs to search for dramatic remedies. Martyrdom [dying for a cause] promised such young men an ideal alternative to a life that we so sparing in its rewards….[This is what] created the death cult that would one day form the core of al-Qaeda."
Document D
Source: Steve Coll, "Threats," New Yorker, 1/18/10
"Many of bin Laden's declared goals, such as the removal of American soldiers from Muslim lands, still resonate in Islamic societies. Yet, in polls conducted across the Muslim world, large majorities repudiate Al Qaeda, and particularly its tactic of murdering civilians. It is common to observe that bin Laden's poll ratings have collapsed in recent years because his violence has taken the lives of Muslims as well as infidels. Actually, polling shows that citizens of Islamic countries, as elsewhere, overwhelmingly disapprove of any indiscriminate killing, whatever the victims' religious beliefs, and no matter the cause."
Document E
Source: Defense Science Board on Strategic Communications, a Pentagon advisory group, September 2004
"Muslims do not 'hate our freedom," but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy."
Document F
Source: Al Qaeda training, a document found by the police in Manchester, England, during a search of an Al Qaeda member's home
The main mission for which the Military Organization is responsible is:
The overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime.
Other missions consist of the following:
Gathering information about the enemy, the land, the installations, and the neighbors.
Kidnaping enemy personnel, documents, secrets, and arms.
Assassinating enemy personnel as well as foreign tourists.
Freeing the brothers who are captured by the enemy.
Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy.
Blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin; not a vital target.
Blasting and destroying the embassies and attacking vital economic centers.
Blasting and destroying bridges leading into and out of the cities.
Source: Barber, Benjamin, “Jihad v. McWorld,” The Atlantic, March 1992.
McWorld does manage to look pretty seductive in a world obsessed with Jihad. It delivers peace, prosperity, and relative unity—if at the cost of independence, community, and identity (which is generally based on difference). The primary political values required by the global market are order and tranquillity, and freedom—as in the phrases "free trade," "free press," and "free love…"
…Jihad delivers a different set of virtues: a vibrant local identity, a sense of community, solidarity among kinsmen, neighbors, and countrymen, narrowly conceived. But it also guarantees parochialism and is grounded in exclusion. Solidarity is secured through war against outsiders. And solidarity often means obedience to a hierarchy in governance, fanaticism in beliefs, and the obliteration of individual selves in the name of the group. Deference to leaders and intolerance toward outsiders (and toward "enemies within") are hallmarks of tribalism …”
Is Islam a primary driver or cause of terrorism?
by John Esposito, Founding director, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University, August 27, 2010
Islam, like all world religions, neither supports nor requires illegitimate violence. The Quran does not advocate or condone terrorism. To enhance their credibility and justify their atrocities, terrorists connect their acts of violence with Islam by totally ignoring the extensive limits that the Quran and the Islamic tradition places on the use of violence and its rejection of terrorism. As with other faiths, a radical fringe distorts and misinterprets mainstream and normative [accepted] Islamic doctrines and laws. They pay no attention to Islamic law which draws on the Quran to set out clear guidelines for the conduct of war and provides no support for hijacking and hostage taking.
Throughout the Quran Muslims are urged to be merciful and just. However, Islam does give guidelines to Muslims for defending their families and themselves as well as their religion and community from aggression. The earliest Quranic verses dealing with the right to engage in a ''defensive'' struggle, were revealed shortly after Muhammad and his followers escaped persecution in Mecca by emigrating to Medina. At a time when they were forced to fight for their lives, Muhammad was told: ''Leave is given to those who fight because they were wronged…who were expelled from their homes wrongfully for saying, 'Our Lord is God' '' (22:39-40).
The Quran, like the Hebrew scriptures or Old Testament, contains verses about struggles and wars. The Islamic community developed in Arabia, in the city of Mecca, where Muhammad lived and received God's revelation. The city was assailed [assaulted] by cycles of tribal warfare and surrounded by constant conflicts with neighboring empires. Nevertheless, the Quranic verses stress repeatedly that peace must be the norm. As in the following verse, the Quran frequently and strongly balances permission to fight an enemy by mandating the need to make peace: "If your enemy inclines toward peace, then you too should seek peace and put your trust in God" (8:61)…
Concern about Islam and violence has often come from what some refer to as the "sword verse," although the word "sword" does not exist in the Quran. This oft-cited verse is seen as encouraging Muslims to kill unbelievers: "When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush" (9:5). Critics use the verse to demonstrate that Islam is naturally violent and religious extremists twist its meaning to develop a theology [religious philosophy] of hate and intolerance and to justify unconditional warfare against unbelievers. In fact, however, the full meaning and intent of this passage is distorted when it is applied to all non-Muslims or unbelievers because the verse is specifically referring to Meccan "idolaters" [polytheistic worshippers of various gods] who are accused of continuously warring against the Muslims.
Islam's relationship to violence and terrorism, as well as the primary causes of global terrorism, are often concealed and confused by the religious language and symbolism that extremists use… In most cases, complex political and economic grievances are primary catalysts [causes] for conflicts and religion becomes a means to legitimate the cause and mobilize popular support. As we can see in the global strategy of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda or witness in Palestine or post-Saddam Iraq… the goals of terrorists are often primarily nationalist, to end the occupation of lands, to force "foreign" military forces from what they see as their homeland.
Religion does provide a powerful source of meaning and motivation. Religiously legitimated violence adds divine [godly] authority that increases a terrorist leader's authority… and heavenly reward, all of which enhance recruitment and a willingness to fight and die in a "sacred struggle." More secular movements have also used and hijacked religion to heighten their appeal. Religious symbolism's power was illustrated when Yasser Arafat, leader of a secular [non-religious] nationalist movement in Palestine (PLO and then PNA), used the terms "jihad" and "shahid" (martyr) to describe his situation when he was under siege in Ramallah [city in the West Bank] in 2002…
Religious leaders and intellectuals can play an important role in the ideological war on terror. Although they do not advocate violence and terror, Wahhabi Islam and militant Christian Right groups which both promote non-pluralistic [intolerant] theologies of hate that condemn other faiths, can be used by militants of many faiths. Hate speech is a powerful justification for blowing up the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, as well as government buildings or abortion clinics, for assassinating "the enemies of God". Christians and Muslims share a critical common goal, that of addressing… theologies which are anti-pluralistic and weak on tolerance for they contribute to beliefs, attitudes and values that feed religious extremism and terrorism affecting all of us.
My BODY is MY Own Business
By Naheed Mustafa, The Globe and Mail Tuesday, June 29, 1993 Facts and Arguments Page (A26),
I OFTEN wonder whether people see me as a radical, fundamentalist Muslim terrorist packing an AK-47 assault rifle inside my jean jacket. Or maybe they see me as the poster girl for oppressed womanhood everywhere. I'm not sure which it is.
I get the whole gamut of strange looks, stares, and covert glances. You see, I wear the hijab, a scarf that covers my head, neck, and throat. I do this because I am a Muslim woman who believes her body is her own private concern.
Young Muslim women are reclaiming the hijab, reinterpreting it in light of its original purpose to give back to women ultimate control of their own bodies.
The Qur'an teaches us that men and women are equal, that individuals should not be judged according to gender, beauty, wealth, or privilege. The only thing that makes one person better than another is her or his character.
Nonetheless, people have a difficult time relating to me. After all, I'm young, Canadian born and raised, university educated why would I do this to myself, they ask.
Strangers speak to me in loud, slow English and often appear to be playing charades. They politely inquire how I like living in Canada and whether or not the cold bothers me. If I'm in the right mood, it can be very amusing.
But, why would I, a woman with all the advantages of a North American upbringing, suddenly, at 21, want to cover myself so that with the hijab and the other clothes I choose to wear, only my face and hands show?
Because it gives me freedom.
WOMEN are taught from early childhood that their worth is proportional to their attractiveness. We feel compelled to pursue abstract notions of beauty, half realizing that such a pursuit is futile.
When women reject this form of oppression, they face ridicule and contempt. Whether it's women who refuse to wear makeup or to shave their legs, or to expose their bodies, society, both men and women, have trouble dealing with them.
In the Western world, the hijab has come to symbolize either forced silence or radical, unconscionable militancy. Actually, it's neither. It is simply a woman's assertion that judgment of her physical person is to play no role whatsoever in social interaction.
Wearing the hijab has given me freedom from constant attention to my physical self. Because my appearance is not subjected to public scrutiny, my beauty, or perhaps lack of it, has been removed from the realm of what can legitimately be discussed. No one knows whether my hair looks as if I just stepped out of a salon, whether or not I can pinch an inch, or even if I have unsightly stretch marks. And because no one knows, no one cares.
Feeling that one has to meet the impossible male standards of beauty is tiring and often humiliating. I should know, I spent my entire teenage years trying to do it. It was a borderline bulimic and spent a lot of money I didn't have on potions and lotions in hopes of becoming the next Cindy Crawford.
The definition of beauty is ever-changing; waifish is good, waifish is bad, athletic is good -- sorry, athletic is bad. Narrow hips? Great. Narrow hips? Too bad.
Women are not going to achieve equality with the right to bear their breasts in public, as some people would like to have you believe. That would only make us party to our own objectification. True equality will be had only when women don't need to display themselves to get attention and won't need to defend their decision to keep their bodies to themselves.
_________________________________________________________________
Naheed Mustafa graduated from the University of Toronto last year with an honours degree in political and history. She is currently studying journalism at Ryerson Polytechnic University
Unit 1 Appendix
World Studies
History and Teachings of Islam
|Religion |Founding (date(s), key |Key tenets (beliefs, values, religious |Spread (how, where and when did it |Impact/Significance (what impact |
| |figures, place, events) |practices) |spread?) |did the religion have on the |
| | | | |region/world?) |
|Islam |What I know or think I |What I know or think I know before reading:|What I know or think I know before |What I know or think I know before |
| |know before reading: | |reading: |reading: |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |What I learned from the |What I learned from the reading: |What I learned from the reading: |What I learned from the reading: |
| |reading: | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
Beliefs:
|Name of the religion: |Christianity |Islam |
|Concept of deity: |Belief in the Trinity; three persons in a single |God (Allah) is one and indivisible-- strict monotheism. |
| |Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. | |
|Status of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ):|Son of God, worshiped as God; one person of the |Highly respected as the second-last prophet; second only|
| |Trinity. |to Muhammad in importance. |
|Death of Jesus: |Authorized by Pontius Pilate and executed by Roman Army|He was neither killed, nor suffered death. Muslims |
| |circa 30 CE by crucifixion. |believe that he ascended alive into heaven. 1 |
|Jesus’ fate: |Ascended into Heaven |Ascended into Heaven |
|Main holy book: |Bible, consisting of Hebrew Scriptures and Christian |Qur'an |
| |Scriptures | |
|Original languages: |Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek. |Arabic. |
|Status of the holy book: |Some believe it’s the word of God, others treat it as a|God's word and final revelation, dictated by angel |
| |historical document |Gabriel to Muhammad. |
|Ethic of reciprocity (Golden rule): |"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men |"Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his |
| |should do to you, do ye even so to them." Matthew 7:12 |brother what he loves for himself." Fourth Hadith of |
| | |an-Nawawi 13 |
|Life after death: |Either Heaven or Hell. Catholics believe in Purgatory |Paradise or Hell. |
| |as a third, temporary, state. | |
|Basis of determining who goes to Heaven or |Different faith groups hold Various diverse beliefs-- |Once they reach puberty, his/her account of deeds is |
|Paradise: |some combination of: repentance, trusting Jesus as Lord|opened in Paradise. To attain paradise, at death, their |
| |and Savior, good works, church sacraments, baptism, |good deeds (helping others, testifying to the truth of |
| |etc. |God, leading a virtuous life)... must outweigh their |
| | |evil deeds. |
|Confessing sins: |Roman Catholic: to God or through a priest; |To Allah |
| |Others: to God or Jesus | |
|Probably the most misunderstood term: |Immaculate Conception: Roman Catholics believe that the|Jihad: internal, personal struggle towards the |
| |conception of the Virgin Mary, circa 20 BCE, was |attainment of a noble goal. Many incorrectly equate it |
| |without sin. Many incorrectly relate it to Yeshua's' |to "holy war." |
| |conception. | |
[pic]
Sequencing: From the reading above, place the following events in chronological order:
Spread of Islam into East Africa
Spread of Islam into West Africa
Spread of Islam into South Asia (India)
Spread of Islam into Persia
Spread of Islam into Southeast Asia
Spread of Islam throughout Arabian Peninsula
Beginning of Umayyad empire
End of Abbasid empire
Death of Muhammad
World Studies
Muslim Civilization’s Golden Age (pp. 317-322)
Directions: As you read about the ‘Golden Age’ of Islam, you should be paying attention to the key characteristics that have caused Muslim historians to consider it a ‘golden age.’ A “SPRITEC” chart is one helpful way to take notes about a period of time in history. As always, when taking notes, you should not be copying down any complete sentences, but instead paraphrasing the main ideas and key supporting details. A few examples have been provided.
|Social: |succeeded in uniting diverse cultures—Arabs, Persians, Egyptians, Africans, Mongols, Turks, Indians and more |
|socioeconomic classes or | |
|groups | |
|race and ethnicity | |
|family & gender roles & | |
|relations; | |
|systems of unfree labor | |
|associations and organizations| |
|Political: | |
|forms of governance, | |
|legal systems | |
|changes and functions of | |
|states; | |
|relationship between | |
|individuals and states; | |
|revolts & revolutions; | |
|Religious: | |
|religions practiced; | |
|belief systems; | |
|role of religion in society; | |
|relationship between | |
|government and religion; | |
|Interaction between people and| |
|environment: | |
|Human impact on environment, | |
|environment’s impact on | |
|society; | |
|demography and disease; | |
|migration | |
|patterns of settlement | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|Technological: | |
|technology and innovation | |
|rise of agriculture & | |
|manufacturing | |
|medical and military | |
|technology | |
|transportation developments | |
|Economic: | |
|what was produced? | |
|who decided what was produced?| |
|natural resources; | |
|agricultural & pastoral | |
|production; | |
|trade & commerce; | |
|labor systems; | |
|industrialization; | |
|Cultural & Intellectual: | |
| |-- built on Arab tradition of oral poetry—put poetry and stories in writing: poems of Rabiah al-Adawiyya, Firdawsi, The |
|The arts, literature, |Thousand and One Nights |
|philosophy, architecture; | |
|mathematics & science; | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Sum it up: After reading pages 317-322, briefly summarize why the Abbasid period is known as Muslim civilization’s “Golden Age.”
World Studies
The Birth of Israel (Choices.edu, pages 6-7)
| |Religion |Ethnicity |What were their goals in |Why did they think they were |By 1949, how close had they |
| | | |Palestine? |entitled to their goal? |come to achieving their goal? |
|Jews |Jewish |Jewish | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|Palestinians |Mostly Muslim |Mostly Arab | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Map Analysis:
Describe the change that took place between the 1947 UN Partition map of Palestine and the 1949 map of Palestine.
Map-Reading Connection:
Based on what you read, what is the explanation for these changes? What happened between 1947 and 1949 that could explain these changes?
Inference:
After reading this brief history of the conflict between Jews and Palestinians in Palestine why do you think this is an issue that Osama bin Laden and his followers care about so deeply? Why do you think the United States cares so deeply about this region?
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Small group role-play discussion questions
1) What do you think the future should be for the region of Palestine/Israel?
2) Who do you think is to blame for the ongoing violence between Israelis and Palestinians?
3) What do you think it will take to achieve peace in Israel/Palestine? Is peace possible?
4) To what extent do you think history (either recent or ancient) should be taken into consideration when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict?
Israeli settler in the West Bank
Politicians try to make this conflict sound so complicated, but it’s really very simple. The land of Palestine belongs to Israel and always has—the holy book makes this very clear. Throughout history the Jewish people have been persecuted—we were persecuted in Palestine 2,000 years ago so many of us moved to Europe, where we were persecuted all the way up through the Holocaust. Israel is the only place on this planet where Jewish people can be safe.
As for the West Bank, where I brought my family 11 years ago, the Palestinians have given up any right the may have had. In 1947 the United Nations said that Palestinians could have the West Bank, and they said “no thanks.” Instead the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948 and then again in 1967, so Israel moved into the West Bank to provide security for the rest of Israel. But the West Bank should have been ours in the first place! For the past 20 years Arab terrorists have continued to use the West Bank as a base from which to carry out suicide attacks on Israel. It is up to me and my fellow settlers to make the West Bank Israeli, and we will do whatever we need to do in order to stay here, regardless of what the politicians tell us to do.
We will not go quietly and we will not go peacefully, as the Prime Minister Rabin found out in 1995. I hate that this the way I must talk, but 60 years of conflict will turn a peaceful man into a militant, and this is what I have become.
Hamas activist
Imagine what it would be like to not have a country. Imagine what it would be like to have no political rights. Imagine having to pass through military checkpoints just to visit a family member, or to spend days in jail simply because of the people you associate with. This is what it has meant to be a Palestinian for the past 45 years, ever since Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Israel is not a real nation and does not have the right to exist. The Zionist invaders started arriving in Palestine over 100 years ago and buying up land. They started claiming that the British told them that they could have their own nation on our land. The British??? What right did they have to give away our land? And then there were the wars and the Israeli occupation, and 750,000 of my people became refugees, people without a nation to call their own.
Israel has developed a powerful army with the most modern weapons—even nuclear weapons. We cannot compete with them on the battlefield. So yes, we have resorted to suicide attacks, and hundreds of Palestinian men and women have become martyrs. We have supported many of them. But we have also provided education, food, legal assistance and protection to the Palestinian people, who would otherwise have nobody to look after them.
Our goal is simple—Israel needs to go away. We don’t care where the people go, as long as they recognize that the land of Palestine belongs to the Arabs. As long as this does not happen we will continue to be use whatever means necessary in order to protect our people.
Israeli mother of an Israeli soldier
My main concern is the well-being of my 18-year old son, a private in the Israeli army, and I do not consider myself to be a political person. My family has lived in Israel since 1949. They were made refugees during World War II, narrowly escaping the Nazis when they invaded the Soviet Union. My grandparents and my parents spent three years on the run and then the next four years trying to make their way to the new nation of Israel. I was born in 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, and my whole life I have heard stories of the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973. I have had friends who have been killed in suicide attacks, and I have witnessed the Israeli army using extreme brutality against young Palestinian men. I am tired of war, I am tired of violence. I simply want to raise my family in safety.
Israel is a democracy. We have leaders that we elect, and they are the ones who have the responsibility to make peace with the Palestinians. At this point I wish they would allow for the Palestinians to have their own nation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Unfortunately there are a small number of Israelis who are very stubborn and sometimes very violent, and I believe they are the ones holding up the peace process. The settlers in the West Bank who refuse to leave make it impossible for the rest of us to live in peace. And now my son is in the West Bank, protecting them, and putting his own life at risk.
Palestinian refugee
My father had a grove of olive trees that he inherited from his grandfather. During the 1948 war my father was forced to flee Palestine and I was born in a refugee camp in Lebanon in 1956. For my whole life I have been a refugee—a man with no nation and a man with no land to call my own.
Until the day my father died he insisted that his land had been stolen from him and that he would never accept peace with the Zionists until he and all other Palestinians got their land back. He supported the wars of 1967 and 1973, and he has supported Hamas and the other groups who have attempted to force Israel to give back our land. Barely a day has gone by when he did not talk to me about the olive trees that would be mine someday.
But me, I am a realist. I have traveled to the land that was my father’s and I know that there are no olive trees there anymore. There are houses with Israeli families living in them. We are never going to get that land back, no matter how many suicide bombers give up their lives. It makes me sad, but not as sad as living as a refugee in a country that will never truly be my home.
Palestine needs to become a nation, and that means accepting that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are all we are ever going to get. Hamas and the others need to put their bombs and their guns away and start devoting their energy to economic development, so that the Palestinian people can live in dignity.
World Studies
Iraq War questions
1. Summarize the pro-war arguments made by President Bush and his advisors:
(at least 3 arguments)
1)
2)
3)
2. Infer what anti-war arguments that might have been made prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq (at least 2)
1)
2)
After reading John Brady Kiesling's letter in your reading packet, summarize his anti-war arguments:
1)
2)
3)
3. Support the following thesis: Based on evidence conducted, the U.S. had the right to invade Iraq.
1.
2.
3.
4. Support the following thesis: The U.S. invasion of Iraq was unjustified.
1.
2.
3.
World Studies
The Soviet Invasion and the Rise of the Taliban
Directions: Read “The Soviet Invasion and the Rise of the Taliban.” As you read, use the annotation strategy that we have used in the past. Keep in mind that our purpose for reading this is to determine what role Afghanistan played in the September 11th attacks. In order to understand this, we need knowledge of Afghanistan’s recent history.
As you read, complete the following activity and the attached organizer (“Other Countries’ Roles in Afghanistan”). The activities do not necessarily go in the order of the reading, but they are all addressed in the reading.
| |Taliban (pp. 37-43) |
|Goals | |
| | |
| | |
|Supporters (both inside and outside| |
|of Afghanistan) | |
|Opponents (both inside and outside | |
|of Afghanistan) | |
|Government structure | |
|(how did they govern Afghanistan) |imposed legal system based on “traditional values” |
| |ruled by Islamic law (“shari’a”) |
| |women oppressed—banned from working, couldn’t go to school, had to be veiled |
| |games, music, television banned |
| |criminal punishment: amputations, death by stoning |
| |leader: Mullah Omar and six religious leaders |
| |unable to provide basic services to their people (food, medicine, etc.) |
| | |
|Reasons for popularity—what allowed| |
|them to gain power and stay in | |
|power? | |
| | |
|Reasons for unpopularity once they | |
|achieved power | |
| | |
Relationships (Identify clear relationships between people, ideas and so on in uncomplicated passages):
|Describe the relationship between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, from 1978-1989): |
|Example: The Soviet Union wanted to see a Communist government put in place in Afghanistan so they helped to overthrow Afghanistan’s government and install a|
|Soviet-backed government. The majority of Afghanis did not support this government and threatened to remove it, so the Soviet Union invaded in 1979. For the|
|next 10 years Afghanis (calling themselves the mujahedeen fought a guerrilla war against the Soviet Union, with the aid of foreign fighters. In 1989 the |
|Soviet Army withdrew from Afghanistan and a few years later their Communist government fell from power. |
|Describe the relationship between Pakistan and the Taliban from the mid-1990s through the present: |
|(pp. 37-42) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Describe the relationship between the Taliban and al Qaeda from the mid-1990s through the present: |
|(pp. 40-43) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Describe the relationship between al Qaeda and the United States from 1998 through the present: |
|(pp. 40-43) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Based on the reading, who do you feel was most responsible for allowing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to grow strong enough to carry out the September 11th |
|attacks? Rank the following groups from 1-4, with 1 being most responsible. Then provide specific reasons for your ranking—what did each group do or not do |
|that made the September 11th attacks possible? |
| |
|Pakistan Afghanistan (under the Taliban) United States Saudi Arabia |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
World Studies
The War in Afghanistan: Past, Present and Future
The United States responded to the September 11th attacks by demanding that the Taliban turn over Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders. When they refused the United States and its NATO allies began bombing Afghanistan on October 7, 2011. A combination of U.S. bombing and the strength of the Taliban’s Afghan opponents (known collectively as the Northern Alliance) forced the Taliban to flee Kabul by mid-November.
Although the swift overthrow of the Taliban at first appeared to be a stunning victory, it soon became clear that they had not been totally defeated. Thousands of Taliban, along with bin Laden and other al Qaeda members, fled into the mountainous regions of Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan where they were largely able to avoid the small number of American military personnel who pursued them.
With the Taliban removed from power the U.S., with help from the international community, immediately began planning for replacement government for Afghanistan. They helped organize the selection of a new government and the writing of a new constitution that would establish regular elections for the future. A Pashtun leader named Hamid Karzai was chosen to lead the new government, and it appeared that Afghanistan may be headed toward a peaceful and democratic future.
International governments and organizations pledged billions of dollars to help stabilize Afghanistan and prevent the resurgence of the Taliban. By 2002 millions of Afghan children had returned to school, including hundreds of thousands of girls, who had been denied education under the Taliban. Despite the optimism, however, Afghanistan faced several serious obstacles:
■ Afghanistan has suffered from poor security, making it one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Most of the U.S. troops have been tasked with tracking down Taliban and al Qaeda and protecting Kabul, leaving much of the nation lawless;
■ with the Taliban defeated the Northern Alliance warlords began fighting one another and attempting to grab as much power as they could;
■ the amount of money put toward rebuilding Afghanistan has not been nearly enough to rebuild a nation that has endured nearly 30 years of nonstop warfare;
■ despite improved health care and education, the average life span remains around 45 years, and only 28 percent of Afghans can read and write;
■ the unemployment rate is estimated to be somewhere between 35 and 70%, and many Afghan farmers have returned to growing the most profitable crop—opium poppies;
■ although there has been some success in holding elections, the government of Hamid Karzai is generally regarded as extremely corrupt, and enthusiasm for democracy may be on the decline;
But most troubling of all, by 2006 the undefeated Taliban had returned. Aided by fighters from Pakistan, the Taliban’s tactics had become even more deadly and effective. They began using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against NATO troops, increasing the number of attacks from 783 in 2005 to 1,677 in 2006. They also began carrying out suicide attacks, increasing from 25 in 2005 to 149 the following year. The majority of the victims of the suicide attacks were Afghan civilians.
In response, under President Obama, the United States increased the number of soldiers in Afghanistan, bringing the number to 100,000 by 2010. They have achieved some successes, most notably the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011, but the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies appear do not appear to be close to defeat. President Obama has pledged that the U.S. will withdraw all of its soldiers by the end of 2014, but the future remains uncertain.
What should be the United States’ strategy in Afghanistan? How important is it to see the Taliban finished off? Is that even possible? What should be done about the presence of al Qaeda in Afghanistan?
U.S. Invasion of Iraq in 2003
Student Questionnaire
1. What is the relationship between Iraq, Al Qaeda, and 9/11?
a. Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11 attacks.
b. Iraq gave substantial support to Al Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11 attacks.
c. A few Al Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraq officials.
d. There was no connection at all.
2. Has the U.S. found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization?
a. The U.S. has found evidence.
b. The U.S. has not found evidence.
3. Since the war with Iraq ended, has the U.S. found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
a. The U.S. has found such weapons.
b. The U.S. has not found such weapons.
4. Did Iraq use chemical or biological weapons in the war that officially ended in April?
a. Iraq did use chemical and biological weapons.
b. Iraq did not use chemical and biological weapons.
5. How do you think the people of the world feel about the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq?
a. The majority of people favor the U.S. having gone to war.
b. Views are evenly balanced.
c. The majority of people oppose the U.S. having gone to war.
6. Where do you tend to get most of your news?
a. Newspapers and magazines
b. TV and radio
c. Internet
d. Family and friends
7. Which network, if any, is your prime source of news?
a. Fox
b. CNN
c. NBC
d. ABC
e. CBS
f. PBS-NPR (National Public Radio)
Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, the U.S. and the UN
Source: Alan Shapiro, , Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility,
After the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations required Iraq to destroy its remaining weapons of mass destruction and missiles with a range greater than 93 miles. The UN also created the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to carry out inspections in Iraq to verify compliance. The inspectors believed they were successful in dismantling Iraq's nuclear facilities and in finding almost all ballistic missiles.
UNSCOM also found and destroyed stocks of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons, but not all of them. Late in 1998 after the chief inspector said that Iraq was interfering with UNSCOM's work, the U.S. threatened Iraq with force, the inspectors left the country and American planes bombed Baghdad. Iraq had claimed for some time that UNSCOM included American spies, an accusation the U.S. admitted to in January 1999. Iraq refused to allow any further inspections and insisted it had no additional weapons of mass destruction. The economic sanctions continued.
But Iraq's record of making and using weapons of mass destruction under Saddam Hussein continued to raise questions. Clearly, he had had scientists working to build nuclear weapons until Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad in 1981. He had used chemical weapons, including mustard gas and nerve agents like sarin, against the Iranians in a war from 1980-1988. And toward the end of that period he had unleashed a series of chemical bombings against Iraq's rebellious Kurdish population in the north. Human Rights Watch, an international human rights organization, says these attacks killed 50,000 to 100,000 and left as many as 150,000 with such afflictions as abnormal births, cleft palates, blindness, and cancers.
According to Gary Mihollin, the director of a U.S. arms control organization that monitors Iraq's weapons capabilities, UNSCOM had not accounted for "almost four tons of the nerve agent VX; 600 tons of ingredients for VX; as much as 3,000 tons of other poison gas agents; and at least 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas."
Since early in 2002 President Bush warned repeatedly that Iraq was part of an "axis of evil" and a great danger to world peace and U.S. security because of its weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons, he declared, could kill tens of thousands of people, even hundreds of thousands, at one blow. And Saddam Hussein had proved that he was aggressive and untrustworthy.
In June 2002 President Bush released the National Security Strategy of the United States, a document declaring that the strategies of containment and deterrence, central elements of U.S. security policy since the late 1940s, are virtually dead. It stated: "We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively....We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed." In other words, the U.S. would not wait if it thought an attack was coming but would attack first. This is a doctrine new to American military strategy and it is controversial.
Repeatedly over the following months, President Bush demanded the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his government, which he called "regime change."
Reports appeared in the media about American military planning for an assault on Iraq. With tensions rising, members of Congress called for debate and American allies called for United Nations deliberations. At first reluctant, President Bush decided to place a resolution before Congress and to bring the issue before the UN.
In October the House of Representatives (by a vote of 296-133) and the Senate (by a vote of 77-23) authorized the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (These resolutions called on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction and admit inspectors to be certain it had done so.)
In a September 12 speech at the UN, the President Bush detailed Iraq's violations of many Security Council resolutions and concluded, "We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council's resolutions will be enforced. The just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable."
After two months of intense discussions, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 by a 15-0 vote. The resolution required Iraq to produce an accurate and complete list of its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs and its ballistic missile developments and to admit UN inspectors to verify compliance. Soon after, UN inspectors returned to Iraq, and the chief inspectors began making regular reports to the Security Council on the progress of the work.
There were significant disagreements among Security Council members over Resolution 1441. U.S. officials said it gave Washington the legal support it needed to go to war against Iraq if the Security Council did not agree about how to respond to any new Iraqi violations. But three of the five permanent Council members--France, Russia, and China--insisted that this was not the case, that it was up to the inspectors to report violations and then up to the Council to decide what, if anything to do about them.
Another disagreement was over exactly what the UN was authorizing. President Bush demanded the elimination of all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as Resolution 1441 required, but raised other issues as well in his public remarks. He spoke of the need for "regime change" and called for the creation of a new and democratic government in Iraq and the spread of democracy to other Middle East nations. France, Russia, and China approved the elimination of weapons of mass destruction but nothing else.
In the second half of March 2003 the Iraq crisis came to a head. American and British leaders were convinced that Iraq was not complying fully with Security Council demands--despite some action by Iraq toward compliance, including turning over some 100 missiles for destruction. Iraq insisted it had no weapons of mass destruction to produce. The U.S. and Britain maintained that Iraqi leaders were lying. French, Russian, and Chinese leaders believed that inspectors were making progress and that there was no reason to approve a second resolution authorizing force. Not having the votes in the Security Council for such a resolution, the Bush administration and Britain determined to go to war on Iraq without it.
The leaders of most nations of the world and most of their peoples opposed this decision. There were huge demonstrations in many cities around the world, including in countries whose leaders backed the Bush administration. Before the war began, polls showed that most Americans opposed the U.S. going to war without the support of the UN. Once war began, a majority of Americans said they supported the Bush administration. However, hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated against the war in cities and towns across the U.S., both before and after the war began. These protests were among the largest this nation has seen.
Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia said in a February speech on the Senate floor: "The idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter*. And it is being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be one our--or some other nation's--hit list. There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11....Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word."
*Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter says that "All members shall refrain in their interrelations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." On March 19 the attack on Iraq began.
Two Views of War on Iraq
Excerpt from the White House report to Congress on its reasons for war on Iraq
"Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations....
Further delay in taking action against Iraq will only serve to give Saddam Hussein's regime additional time to further develop weapons of mass destruction to use against the United States, its citizens, and its allies. The United States and the UN have long demanded immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation by Iraq in the disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. There is no reason to believe that Iraq will disarm and cooperate with inspections to verify such disarmament, if the U.S. and the UN employ only diplomacy and other peaceful means....
The use of force against Iraq will directly advance the war on terror, and will be consistent with continuing efforts against international terrorists residing and operating elsewhere in the world....
In the circumstances described above, the President of the United States has the authority--indeed, given the dangers involved, the duty--to use force against Iraq to protect the security of the American people and to compel compliance with Security Council resolutions."
Excerpt from John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in U. S. embassies in such places as Tel Aviv, Casablanca, and Athens.
"....until this administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my President I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapons of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security....
This administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool....We spread ...terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq....We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary....Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism?....Why does our President condone the swaggering, contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials? ... I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. administration.
Current Issues: Islam and Human Rights
Handout 1: Background and Quotations from Qur’an and Hadith Related to Human Rights
The modern concept of human rights was influenced by the Abrahamic religoius tradition, the classical heritage of Greek philosophy, and the Enlightenment philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Islam, the third branch of the Abrahamic tradition, has a tradition of human rights that is based on the concept of haqq, which means both "truth" and "right." The concept of haqq is closely related to the achieving the overall goal of justice in this world, based on the concept of a just God. Rights such as the sacred rights to life, freedom, equality, heritage and dignity are given by the Creator at birth.
In Islamic law, the concept of hukm, meaning the ruling on a matter, defines both rights and duties in a given situation. Individual rights do not stand alone, but emerge from the obligations or duties of one person toward another, or a person towards God. In this way, rights are embedded in the idea of human relationships on the personal and community level.
It is a common idea that "my freedom ends where your rights begin." A well known example is that my freedom to swing my arm ends when it reaches the end of your nose. An Islamic concept of rights would read, "My duty to treat others with kindness and justice gives you the right to expect proper treatment from me, and God is the guarantor of your rights." In case of conflicting rights, the hukm, or ruling should be made on the basis of what lies in the public interest. A common example of this is the idea of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded public place. The act of shouting in a loud voice may be an individual right that seems harmless, but endangering the public interest clearly outweighs the value of the individual right.
The rights and duties of individuals merge in the overall concept of justice, so that each is an extension of the other. Fulfillment of mutual responsibilities is the means to achieve justice in the world. The hukm, or ruling about rights and obligations is a way to establish justice in society. The fundamental rights to life, religion, intellect, property, freedom and dignity do not require any ruling, and do not depend on any other person, because they are granted by the Creator, as stated in revelations given to humankind.
The following quotations from the two essential primary sources of Islam, the Qur’an and the Hadith, or words and deeds of Prophet Muhammad, are given as material for document study below, and for comparative document study with the inscriptions in the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., and the 1789 French document, The Declaration of the Rights of Man.
Rights and duties related to universal human rights:
From the Qur’an:
"O mankind! We created you from a single soul, male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another, and not despise one another. Truly, the most honored of you in God 's sight is the greatest of you in piety. God is All-Knowing, All-Aware." (49:13)
"O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them He has spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim your rights of one another, and toward the wombs that bore you. Lo! Allah is a Watcher over you." (4:1)
"…We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if be had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs, but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth." (5:32)
"And He has raised high the Firmament and He has set up the balance of Justice" (55:7)
"O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for God in equity, and let not hatred of any people keep you from dealing justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to God. Lo! God is Informed of what ye do." (5.8)
From Hadith:
"Verily! Your blood, property and honor are sacred to one another like the sanctity of this day of yours, in this month of yours and in this city of yours. It is a duty for those who are present to tell those who are not here, because those who are not here now (future generations) might understand better than the present audience." (Hadith al-Bukhari 1.67)
"Your Lord has a right on you; and your soul has a right on you; and your family has a right on you; so you should give the rights of all those who have a right on you)." (Hadith al-Bukhari 8:161)
Rights and duties related to tyranny and oppression of others:
From the Qur’an:
"We (God) offered the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains: but they refused to undertake, it being afraid of it: but man undertook it. He has proved unjust and foolish." (33:72)
"On the Day when every soul will come pleading for itself, and every soul will be repaid what it did, and they will not be wronged." (16.111 )
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors." (2:190)
From Hadith:
"Whoever has oppressed another person concerning his reputation or anything else, he should beg him to forgive him before the Day of Resurrection when there will be no money (to compensate for wrong deeds), but if he has good deeds, those good deeds will be taken from him according to his oppression which he has done, and if he has no good deeds, the sins of the oppressed person will be loaded on him." (Hadith al-Bukhari 3:62)
"On the Day of Judgment, rights will be given to those to whom they are due (and wrongs will be redressed)…." (Hadith Muslim, 2:582)
Rights and duties related to religious tolerance:
From the Qur’an:
‘There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is distinct from error. And he who rejects false deities and believes in The One God has grasped a firm handhold which will never break. God is Hearer, Knower’. (2.256)
"Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered." (2:136)
"Those who believe (in the Qur'an) and those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians and who believe in Allah and the last day and work righteousness shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve." (2:62)
"Those who believe (in the Qur'an) those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures) and the Sabians and the Christians any who believe in Allah and the Last Day and work righteousness on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve." (5:69)
Rights and duties related to social justice:
From the Qur’an:
‘O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for God in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to God. Lo! God is Informed of what ye do.’ (5.8)
"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards East or west; but it is righteousness to believe in God and the Day of Judgement and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans. For the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask; and for the freeing of captives; to be steadfast in prayers, and practice regular poor due; to fulfil the contracts which you made; and to be firm and patient in suffering and adversity and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-conscious". (2:177)
"And devour not each other’s property wrongfully unless it be through lawful trade and your mutual consent" (4:29)
"And in no wise covet those things in which Allah has bestowed his gifts more freely on some of you than on others: to men is allotted what they earn and to women what they earn: but ask God of His bounty: for God has full knowledge of all things." (4:32)
"And render to the kindred their due rights as also to those in want and to the wayfarer: but squander not your wealth in the manner of a spendthrift." (17:26)
"Your Sustainer (God) has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your lifetime, do not say to them a word of contempt nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility and say: my Sustainer! Bestow' on them Your mercy, even as they cherished me in childhood." (l7: 23-24)
From Hadith:
"He is not a believer who eats his fill when his neighbor beside him is hungry; and: He does not believe whose neighbors are not safe from his injurious conduct."
"My Sustainer (God) has given me nine commands: to remain conscious of God, whether in private or in public; to speak justly, whether angry or pleased; to show moderation both when poor and when rich, to reunite friendship with those who have broken off with me; to give to him who refuses me; that my silence should be occupied with thought; that my looking should be an admonition; and that I should command what is right."
Source: The Islam Project,
Current Issues: Women in Islam
The issue of women in Islam is highly controversial. Any materials on this subject, whether in print or online, should be used with caution because of the lack of objectivity.
While it is generally agreed that the rights granted to women in the Qur'an and by the prophet Muhammad were a vast improvement in comparison to the situation of women in Arabia prior to the advent of Islam, after the Prophet's death the condition of women in Islam began to decline and revert back to pre-Islamic norms. Yet just as the women's movement in the West began to pick up steam in the twentieth century, the same thing occurred, although to a lesser extent, in the Muslim world at this time. Feminists in the Muslim world in the twentieth century (until the 1980's) were generally upper class women whose feminism was modeled after feminists in the West.
But just as modern socio-political models in the Muslim world after the colonial period began, in the 20th century, to shift from Western models of society and government to "Islamic" models, feminism in the Muslim world began to take on Islamic forms rather than aping the Western feminist form. This has been true not merely for Muslim women but for women throughout the entire third world. Having thrown off the shackles of colonial imperialism, women of the third world are increasingly growing resistant to the cultural imperialism marketed by the West, even in the form of feminism. Hence, third world women, like women of color in the West, are realizing that while they have certain things in common with the struggle of Euro-American feminists, what is best for Euro-American women is not necessarily going to be best for them. Consequently Muslim women have been developing a distinctly "Islamic" feminism, just as women of color in the West have been developing "womanism" in contrast to feminism, which primarily was shaped by the concerns of upper-class Euro-American women.
One example of the differences between Western feminism and Islamic feminism concerns the issue of "veiling." The hijab (often translated as "veil") is the form of scarf or hair covering commonly worn by Muslim women. It has always been seen by the Western feminist as oppressive and as a symbol of a Muslim woman's subservience to men. As a result, it often comes as a surprise to Western feminists that the veil has become increasingly common in the Muslim world and is often worn proudly by college girls as a symbol of an Islamic identity, freeing them symbolically from neo-colonial Western cultural imperialism and domination.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- college prep timeline checklist
- college prep checklist printable
- aster college prep memphis
- college prep counselor near me
- high school college prep timeline
- college prep counseling
- college prep english worksheets
- college prep english syllabus
- college prep worksheets pdf
- college prep schools
- college prep high school
- college prep school football programs